Case A26025975

JOHN J. CROWLEY · 2026 · Case ID: A26025975

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served from July 1967 to May 1969, appeals decisions from June and October 2025 concerning proposed severances of service connection for a skin disorder and multiple postoperative scars, as well as a proposed discontinuance of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC). The Board dismissed these matters as non-appealable rating decisions because they were proposed actions, not final decisions. The veteran also appealed for increased ratings for right and left upper extremity tremors and an initial rating for a balance disability. The Board reviewed the February 2025 VA examination reports, which noted mild balance problems and tremors, with family reporting increased tremors. The Board found the veteran's balance disability, characterized by dizziness, warranted a 10 percent rating, resolving doubt in his favor due to objective evidence of dizziness, though higher ratings were not supported by evidence of staggering. For the upper extremity tremors, the Board found the veteran's right upper extremity tremor was mild and the left was moderate, consistent with the existing 20 percent ratings, and denied increased ratings. The Board also considered and denied TDIU, finding no evidence the veteran is unable to work due to his service-connected conditions. The veteran's lay statements were considered but weighed against objective medical evidence, which did not indicate worsening symptoms beyond current ratings.

Special Benefit

SMC

Docket No.

251205-622837

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26025975
Decision Date: 03/24/26 Archive Date: 03/24/26

DOCKET NO. 251205-622837
DATE: March 24, 2026

ORDER

Whether the proposed severance of service connection for basal cell carcinomas with keratinization skin disorders was proper is dismissed.

Whether the proposed severance of service connection for multiple postoperative scars left mid-back was proper is dismissed.

Whether the proposed severance of service connection for multiple postoperative scars left upper chest and left mid-flank was proper is dismissed.

Whether the proposed discontinuance of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) was proper is dismissed.

Entitlement to an initial 10 percent rating for a balance disability is granted.

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for right upper extremity tremors is denied.

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left upper extremity tremors is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The proposed severances of service connection for a skin disorder and multiple scars as well as the discontinuance of SMC were not a final appealable rating decisions.

2. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, there is objective evidence the Veteran's balance disability is manifested by dizziness.

3. The Veteran's right upper extremity tremors are mild in nature.

4. The Veteran's left upper extremity tremors are moderate in nature.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for the dismissal of whether the proposed severance of service connection for skin disorders and scars as well as the discontinuance of SMC were proper is dismissed. 38?U.S.C. §?5112; 38?C.F.R. §?3.105.

2. The criteria for an initial rating of 10 percent for a balance disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8004-6204.

3. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for right upper extremity tremors have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8004-8514.

4. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for left upper extremity tremors have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8004-8514.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from July 1967 to May 1969.

These matters are on appeal from June and October 2025 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO).

In the December 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June and October 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Dismissed Claims

The RO granted entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's skin disability and his multiple postoperative scars as well SMC in a June 2025 rating decision.

In the October 2025 rating decision, the RO proposed to sever service connection for these four disabilities and proposed to discontinue SMC.

Prior to the RO finalizing the severance and discontinuance, the Veteran submitted his Form 10182.

The Board notes the proposed severances and discontinuance were not final appealable rating decisions as they were just a "proposed" action and therefore, they are not appealable rating decisions. Thus, they will be dismissed.

If the severances or discontinuances of these disabilities are finalized, the Veteran may appeal that decision to the Board.

Increased Rating Claims

Disability evaluations (ratings) are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service
2025 rating decision.

In the October 2025 rating decision, the RO proposed to sever service connection for these four disabilities and proposed to discontinue SMC.

Prior to the RO finalizing the severance and discontinuance, the Veteran submitted his Form 10182.

If the severances or discontinuances of these disabilities are finalized, the Veteran may appeal that decision to the Board.

Increased Rating Claims

Disability evaluations (ratings) are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing the symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10.

In evaluating a disability, the Board considers the current examination reports in light of the whole recorded history to ensure that the current rating accurately reflects the severity of the condition. The Board has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Veteran. App. 589 (1991). The medical as well as industrial history is to be considered, and a full description of the effects of the disability upon ordinary activity is also required. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10.

Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one diagnostic code requires use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned. In the selection of code numbers assigned to disabilities, injuries will generally be represented by the number assigned to the residual condition on the basis of which the rating is determined. With injuries and diseases, preference is to be given to the number assigned to the injury or disease itself; if the rating is determined on the basis of residual conditions, the number appropriate to the residual condition will be added, preceded by a hyphen. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27.

In a claim for a greater original rating after an initial award of service connection, all of the evidence submitted in support of the Veteran's claim is to be considered. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999).

The Veteran's balance disability is rated as noncompensable under DC 8004-6204.

Under DC 6204, occasional dizziness warrants a 10 percent evaluation and dizziness and occasional staggering warrants a 30 percent rating. Note to DC 6204 says that objective findings supporting the diagnosis of vestibular disequilibrium are required before a compensable evaluation can be assigned under this code.

The Veteran's upper extremity tremors are rated each as 20 percent disabling under DC 8004-8514.

Under DC 8514 (for paralysis of the musculospiral/radial nerve): a 20 percent rating is warranted for mild, incomplete paralysis of either the major (dominant) or minor (nondominant) arm; a 20 percent rating is warranted for moderate, incomplete paralysis of the minor arm; a 30 percent rating is warranted for moderate, incomplete paralysis of the major arm; a 40 percent rating is warranted for severe, incomplete paralysis of the minor arm; a 50 percent rating is warranted for severe, incomplete paralysis of the major arm; and either a 60 percent rating (for the minor arm) or a 70 percent (maximum schedular) rating (for the major arm) is warranted for complete paralysis, drop of hand and fingers, wrist and fingers perpetually flexed, the thumb adducted falling within the line of the outer border of the index finger, can not extend hand at wrist, extend proximal phalanges of fingers, extend thumb, or make lateral movement of wrist, supination of hand, extension and flexion of elbow weakened, the loss of synergic motion of extensors impairs the hand grip seriously, total paralysis of the triceps occurs only as the greatest rarity).

The terms "mild," "moderate," "moderately severe," and "severe" are not defined under VA law and appear to have no commonly accepted medical definition; while the terms are used in the ratings for muscle disabilities, they are specifically defined under those regulations. Therefore, the Board finds that it is appropriate to turn to a general-purpose dictionary definition of these terms. Terry v. Principi, 340 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (in the absence of an express definition, words are given their ordinary meaning). The Board observes, in passing, that "severe" is defined as "extremely intense." See Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd ed. 1999), 1012. "Moderate" is defined as "tending towards the mean or average mount" or "not severe or intense." Id. "Mild" is defined as gentle in nature, not severe, or not being involved in the extreme. Id. The term "severe" is used throughout the Rating Schedule, to indicate a very great or intense case of the specific listed disability, in order to differentiate between lesser (or sometimes greater) cases of that same disability within the specific diagnostic code. Within the context of this diagnostic criteria, which establishes a successive, tiered rating structure, it represents the highest or most extreme level. Thus, the Board finds that "moderately severe" is of a degree greater than the average level but not arising to the level of severe.

The Veteran had an examination for his extremity nerves in February 2025. The examiner saw the Veteran in person, reviewed his file, and noted that since an event in September 2023, the Veteran had mild balance problems and tremors. The Veteran denied symptoms but his family reported increased tremors. The Veteran was taking medication. The Veteran had normal strength and reflexes in his upper extremities.

The Veteran also had an examination for Parkinson's Disease in February 2025. The examiner saw the Veteran in person, reviewed his file, and noted the Veteran had mild balance impairment and mild right upper extremity tremors and moderate left upper extremity tremors.

The Board has reviewed the Veteran's entire file, including his lay statements and his medical treatment records. Those records indicate the Veteran has been seeking treatment for his tremors but does not indicate that his tremors are worse than currently rated. Records indicate his left tremor appears to be worse than his right tremor but records also indicate it is "not bothersome to him." (See e.g. March 2025 treatment records.) Records also indicate the Veteran has a left resting tremor while his right tremor was only intermittent. The evidence does not indicate the Veteran's right upper extremity tremor is worse than mild or that his left upper extremity tremor is worse than moderate. It is noted here the Veteran is right-hand dominant.

The Board notes here the Veteran's record does indicate he has been treated for dizziness often. (See e.g. February 2024, December 2024, March 2025 treatment records.) While several examiners have noted dizziness as a symptom, it is unclear whether these notations are objective findings or the Veteran's subjective reported symptoms. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board will grant a 10 percent rating for dizziness. However, a higher rating is not warranted as there is no objective evidence indicating the Veteran's balance disability leads to staggering.

Neither the Veteran nor his representative has identified any other rating criteria that would provide a higher rating or an additional rating. However, the potential applications of various provisions of Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2016) have been considered as required by the holding of the Court in Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991).

The Court has held that a request for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), whether expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, is not a separate "claim" for benefits, but rather, can be part of a claim for increased compensation. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). While the Veteran meets the schedular criteria for a TDIU and there is evidence his tremor and balance disability would impact his ability to work, there is no evidence in the file indicating the Veteran is not working due to his service connected tremors or balance disability
Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991).

Regarding the claims above, the Board acknowledges and has considered the Veteran's statements that his conditions bother him and they are due to his time in service. However, while the Veteran is competent to report the symptoms of his disabilities, he is not competent to opine on matters requiring medical knowledge, such as the severity of his complex medical conditions. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, while the Board has carefully considered the Veteran's statements about his symptoms, these statements must be weighed against the objective evidence of record, which does not indicate the Veteran's tremor disabilities are worse than their assigned ratings.

It is important for the Veteran to understand that these medical findings provide highly probative evidence against this claim that the Board cannot, unfortunately, ignore, outweighing the Veteran's beliefs that his tremor disabilities are worse than indicated by his current ratings.

Regarding all the above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. Except as otherwise noted, because the evidence is not in approximate balance or nearly equal, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990), Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

John J. Crowley

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board A. Snoparsky, Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer